CASE (Canon No, FACTS and ISSUES
parties)
CANON 15 DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGE
COMMUNICATION
MA. LUISA
HADJULA, 1. 2002: in an AFFIDAVIT-
complainant, COMPLAINT to the IBP-CBD,
vs. ATTY. complainant charged Atty.
ROCELES F. Madianda with violation of Article
MADIANDA, 2092 of the Revised Penal Code
respondent. and Canon Nos. 15.02 and 21.02 of
the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
2. Hadjula and Atty. Madianda used
to be friends – them being Chief
Nurse and Chief Legal Officer of
the Bureau of Fire and Protection,
respectively.
3. Sometime in 1998, Hadjula
sought for Atty. Madianda’s legal
advice. She revealed to Atty. M
information of confidential nature
- she disclosed personal secrets
and produced copies of a marriage
contract, a birth certificate and a
baptismal certificate. However,
Atty. M didn’t accept the case, and
said that she would refer the same
to another lawyer.
4. Eventually, their friendship went
bitter after complainant filed a
criminal and disciplinary action
against Atty. M.
IBP-CBD IBP-BOG SC
BE REPRIMANDED REPRIMANDED REPRIMANDED, STERNLY WARNED
Rationale: That there is room for
1. That the 1. Adopted and compassion, absent compelling evidence
information related approved CBD. that the respondent acted with ill-will.
by complainant to Without meaning to condone the error of
the respondent is respondent’s ways, what at bottom is
“protected under before the Court is two former friends
the attorney-client becoming bitter enemies and filing charges
privilege and counter-charges against each other. At
communication, the end of the day, it appears clear to us
thus violating the that respondent was actuated by the urge
legal ethics when to retaliate without perhaps realizing that,
she revealed in the process of giving vent to a negative
information given sentiment, she was violating the rule on
to her during a confidentiality.
legal consultation.
1. There was an atty-client relationship:
“The moment complainant approached the
then receptive respondent to seek legal
advice, a veritable lawyer-client
relationship evolved between the two. Such
relationship imposes upon the lawyer
certain restrictions circumscribed by the
ethics of the profession. Among the
burdens of the relationship is that which
enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this
instance, to keep inviolate confidential
information acquired or revealed during
legal consultations. The fact that one is, at
the end of the day, not inclined to handle
the client’s case is hardly of consequence.
Of little moment, too, is the fact that no
formal professional engagement follows
the consultation. Nor will it make any
difference that no contract whatsoever was
5. Additionally, in retaliation, Atty.
M filed against the Ombudsman a
counter-complaint against Hadjula,
alleging violation of the R.A. No.
3019. Atty. M’s basis: falsification
of public documents and
immorality. Atty. M filed a
complaint as well against Hadjula
in the PRC.
6. Atty. M’s answer to the
complaint:
(a) The information disclosed to
her by Hadjula were all common-
knowledge in the BFP;
(b) That they never had an
attorney-client relationship.
Atty. M: “since and that never
obtained any legal advice from me
regarding her PERSONAL
PROBLEMS or PERSONAL
SECRETS. She likewise never
delivered to me legal documents
much more told me some
confidential information or secrets.
That is because I never entertain
LEGAL QUERIES or
CONSULTATION regarding
PERSONAL MATTERS since I know
as a LAWYER of the Bureau of Fire
Protection that I am not allowed to
privately practice law and it might
also result to CONFLICT OF
INTEREST. As a matter of fact,
whenever there will be PERSONAL
MATTERS referred to me, I just
referred them to private law
practitioners and never entertain
the same, NOR listen to their
executed by the parties to memorialize the
relationship.”
2. Doctrine cited: ““A lawyer-client
relationship was established from the very
first moment complainant asked
respondent for legal advise regarding the
former’s business. To constitute
professional employment, it is not essential
that the client employed the attorney
professionally on any previous occasion. It
is not necessary that any retainer be paid,
promised, or charged; neither is it material
that the attorney consulted did not
afterward handle the case for which his
service had been sought. It a person, in
respect to business affairs or troubles of
any kind, consults a lawyer with a view to
obtaining professional advice or assistance,
and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces with the consultation, then the
professional employments is established.
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists
notwithstanding the close personal
relationship between the lawyer and the
complainant or the nonpayment of the
former’s fees.”
3. There exists and atty-client privilege
communication when: ““(1) Where legal
advice of any kind is sought (2) from a
professional legal adviser in his capacity as
such, (3) the communications relating to
that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by
the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure
by himself or by the legal advisor, (8)
except the protection be waived.”
 stories or examine or accept any 4. CASE AT BAR: With the view we take of
document.” this case, respondent indeed breached his
(c) That the truth of the matter duty of preserving the confidence of a
was that Hadjula manifested client. As found by the IBP Investigating
immorality and unbecoming of a Commissioner, the documents shown and
public employee for having an the information revealed in confidence to
illicit relationship with a man not the respondent in the course of the legal
his husband, to whom she has a consultation in question, were used as
child. That Atty. M was certain that bases in the criminal and administrative
Hadjula would be dismissed in the complaints lodged against the complainant.
service and be removed from the
PRC roll due to her acts. DOCTRINE: The purpose of the rule of
confidentiality is actually to protect the
client from possible breach of confidence
6. MAIN ISSUE OF THE as a result of a consultation with a lawyer.
COMPLAINANT: Complainant
seeks the suspension and/or
disbarment of respondent for the
latter’s act of disclosing personal
secrets and confidential
information she revealed in the
course of seeking respondent’s
legal advice.

CANON 15 REPRESENTING CONFLICTING SUSPENSION: 1yr 1yr SUSPENSION: 1yr

INTERESTS Rationale: Considering that this is
LYDIA CASTRO-
JUSTO, 1. Sometime in April 2003, Justo
complainant, engaged the services of respondent
vs. ATTY. Atty. Galing in connection with
RODOLFO T. dishonored checks issued by
GALING, Manila City Councilor Arlene W.
respondent. Koa (Ms. Koa). After filing of
professional fees, Atty. G drafted a
demand letter from Ms. Koa for
payment. Atty. G then required
Justo to wait for the lapse of period
indicated in the demand letter
before filing a complaint.
2. On 2003, Justo filed a complaint
(estafa) against Ms. Koa in the City
Prosecutor. However, the motion
(Motion for Consolidation) of Ms.
Koa was found to be filed by the
same Atty. G, and the latter
appearing as Ms. Koa’s counsel
before the prosecutor’s office.
3. COMPLAINANT’S MAIN ISSUE:
“representing conflicting interests,
respondent violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility.”
4. Atty. G’s answer:
(a) The drafting of demand letter
was only out of consideration of
their (Justo) friendship, not by
reason of professional
engagement;
(b) There was never a professional
fee rendered, and that they agreed
that Justo would engage the
services of another lawyer;
(c) That the basis of the estafa
1. They found 1. Adopted CBD’s. respondent’s first infraction, the
respondent guilty disbarment sought in the complaint is
of violating Canon deemed to be too severe.
15, Rule 15.03 of
the Code of 1. With respect to Atty. G’s contention of
Professional absence of atty-client relationship
Responsibility by because there was no fee paid and that the
representing demand letter was made out of friendly
conflicting interests consideration:
and for his daring “We are not persuaded. A lawyer-client
audacity and for the relationship can exist notwithstanding the
pronounced close friendship between complainant and
malignancy of his respondent. The relationship was
act. established the moment complainant
sought legal advice from respondent
regarding the dishonored checks.”
CASE AT BAR: “By drafting the demand
letter respondent further affirmed such
relationship. The fact that the demand
letter was not utilized in the criminal
complaint filed and that respondent was
not eventually engaged by complainant to
represent her in the criminal cases is of no
moment.”
Atty. G referring to Justo as “my client” in
the demand letter amounts to an admission
of presence of atty-client relationship.
2. As to the absence of prof. Fee:
“Likewise, the non-payment of professional
fee will not exculpate respondent from
liability. Absence of monetary
consideration does not exempt lawyers
from complying with the prohibition
against pursuing cases with conflicting
interests. The prohibition attaches from the
moment the attorney-client relationship is
charge was not his (Atty. G) prior
drafted demand letter, but of
another lawyer (pertained to
above).
(d) That the filing of the Motion for
Consolidation which is a non-
adversarial pleading does not
evidence the existence of a lawyer-
client relationship between him
and Ms. Koa. Likewise, his
appearance in the joint
proceedings should only be
construed as an effort on his part
to assume the role of a moderator
or arbiter of the parties. That Atty.
G only wanted an out-of-court
settlement between Justo and Ms.
Koa, the two being long time
friends as well.
established and extends beyond the
duration of the professional relationship”
Doctrine cited: that it is not necessary that
any retainer be paid, promised or charged;
neither is it material that the attorney
consulted did not afterward handle the
case for which his service had been sought.
3. Violation of Canon:
Under Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, “[a] lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests
except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
Respondent was therefore bound to refrain
from representing parties with conflicting
interests in a controversy. By doing so,
without showing any proof that he had
obtained the written consent of the
conflicting parties, respondent should be
sanctioned.
The prohibition against representing
conflicting interest is founded on principles
of public policy and good taste. In the
course of the lawyer-client relationship, the
lawyer learns of the facts connected with
the client’s case, including the weak and
strong points of the case. The nature of the
relationship is, therefore, one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree.
It behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the client’s confidence, but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and
double-dealing for only then can litigants
be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of
justice.”

Case cited: “There is conflict of interest

when a lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two or more opposing parties.
The test is ‘whether or not in behalf of one
client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an
issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it
for the other client. In brief, if he argues for
one client, this argument will be opposed
by him when he argues for the other client.”

CASE AT BAR: The excuse proffered by

respondent that it was not him (but the
other lawyer) cannot exempt him from
violating Canon 15. The take-over of a
client’s cause of action by another lawyer
does not give the former lawyer the right to
represent the opposing party. It is not only
malpractice but also constitutes a violation
of the confidence resulting from the
attorney-client relationship.